Without wanting to knock CFD etc I end up with the obvious thought - all that and they still don't get anywhere near winning.

That isn't to critizise the team itself but the silly part is every team is spending vast sums on employing IT / software guys AND the computing power is restricted by the FIA down to just below what Boeing and Airbus have for aero research ( or so I have read) and its a zero sum game.

Yes, the above arguements are quite valid. You could ban many 'unecessary' things in all types of racing', to keep costs down.
But there is a more fundemental arguement also. (and not just the one which asks if racing is necessary at all)
It's all private money & if people/organisations choose to spend it in that way, why stop them? Life has always been like that.
Yes, it makes for more & more tedious & micro managed racing, so it's understandable to want to rein things back but that rarely produces more exciting racing.
The current era of 'great racing' is entirely down to 3 artificial factors - DRS & aero restrictions, the totally incomprehensible tyre policy & engine restrictions.
None of these exactly encourage the innovative design leaps witnessed in the past.
With the advent of budget/manpower caps 3 or 4 years ago many people who made a living, moved house, planned for the future, gained valuable experience,
contributed to the economy because the industry seemed to be very healthy, had their legs kicked out from under them by just one, all powerful & autocratic organisation - the FIA.
Only dictatorial governments have that much power.
Yes it's easy to say we could ban this and that but things are never as simple as they seem.

Maintaing jobs is not FIAs concern. And i doubt those engineers will struggle with finding jobs.

DRS has not contributed to good racing. There is rarely any fighting for position now. they just breeze past. FIA needs to at least adjust it. say the angle it is allowed to move.

And just because things are working now for one or more reasons does not mean it can`t be improved in one or two areas.

The costs related to the "simple" technology is still a big issue. Such as the suspension. Marussia i believe had steel suspension the first year.

The strickt aero restrictions and engine freeze is working ok i guess. Strickt rules makes it easier to hit the "limit" design wise.

But by removing dead weight (suspension arm tech etc) you free up resources to focus on other areas. The price tag for competing goes down and it becomes a shorter way to the top (the "limit"). The field clumps up and close racing ensues.

The tires might actually be a damper to the potensial F1 got now. But i must give them credit for making tires that does not need to be on the racing line to work. They only need to fix the marbles.

If you are as determined as you say you are, you wouldn't need to ask that question.Are you sure you are not confusing 'dreaming' with 'determined'?They are plenty, & I mean plenty, of highly qualified graduates, post graduates & PhD's willing to work for nothing, to get into F1 & they don't need to ask those things.That said, I wish you luck & if you really want to break into F1, you must not stop trying & always be working towards having the right experience & background.

I think Determined may have applied for a job (I think there was an ad for aerodynamics modeler on their site at the time) that doesn't require that knowledge (ad specified working in CATIA in Enovia environment), and in that case I'd say his willingness to learn more about the field he could be working in should be commendable...